Kobold-murdering PC. How would you handle it if you were DM?

[Yukitsu]

I was speaking of Polymorph Any Object, and wasn't thinking of a combat encounter in the strictest sense. More like a "hey, you killed of my kids, do you know how expensive the spell components are to raise them, pay up." and then if he balks at paying a kobold then he gets to be one for a week.

I'm not 100% certain that works either, but since you're retroactively custom making a CR 15+ encounter for the sole purpose of punishing a player who did something reasonable but which you didn't want, I'm going to still say that you'd be a bad DM for doing it even if polymorph any object does let you polymorph an unwilling living target.

[gadren]

I'm not 100% certain that works either, but since you're retroactively custom making a CR 15+ encounter for the sole purpose of punishing a player who did something reasonable but which you didn't want, I'm going to still say that you'd be a bad DM for doing it even if polymorph any object does let you polymorph an unwilling living target.

Eh, their mom was already supposed to be a relatively powerful caster before I knew her kids were going to get killed off.

But it was just a thought. The irony seemed kind of delicious.

[Shackel]

I'm not 100% certain that works either, but since you're retroactively custom making a CR 15+ encounter for the sole purpose of punishing a player who did something reasonable but which you didn't want, I'm going to still say that you'd be a bad DM for doing it even if polymorph any object does let you polymorph an unwilling living target.

I agree; being spiteful as a DM for not agreeing with a character or player's opinions does not say good things about their style.

[gadren]

I agree; being spiteful as a DM for not agreeing with a character or player's opinions does not say good things about their style.

It's not spite.

But after more thought I'm agreeing it's a poor idea.

[Mr. Mask]

If you did do it, I'd emphasize a self-serving or less than totally moral side of the kobold mother. Make it like a fairy tale, where you annoyed the fairies and now bad things are going to happen, so you either have to appease them, trick them, or possibly kill them. Give the players a chance to get her drunk and steal her stuff later.

Doing it as a form of karma and enforcing your will on the player will just leave a bitter mood for the affair. So I'd say if you teach him a lesson, give him good opportunities which come from it.

Id also be careful about railroading him into it. It's hard to accept a situations you feel you're forced into, so if bad things happen, try to make it so the player causes them himself throughout the next encounter, not that everything is set up against him so he couldn't have escaped.

[gadren]

If you did do it, I'd emphasize a self-serving or less than totally moral side of the kobold mother. Make it like a fairy tale, where you annoyed the fairies and now bad things are going to happen, so you either have to appease them, trick them, or possibly kill them. Give the players a chance to get her drunk and steal her stuff later.

Doing it as a form of karma and enforcing your will on the player will just leave a bitter mood for the affair. So I'd say if you teach him a lesson, give him good opportunities which come from it.

Id also be careful about railroading him into it. It's hard to accept a situations you feel you're forced into, so if bad things happen, try to make it so the player causes them himself throughout the next encounter, not that everything is set up against him so he couldn't have escaped.

Right. I only had the idea because I was thinking more as a writer than a DM. If I was writing a fantasy story, it's the kind of thing I'd do, but then I come back to Earth and remember not to deny the players their agency.

[Mr. Mask]

That's fair enough. It's easy to fall into that trap.

[Keltest]

That they are mine-haunting monsters, though, does.

as a rule of thumb, trying to claim that monster races, especially sapient ones capable of making their own moral decisions, are not worthy of being treated as an intelligent being, is a good way to lose your good alignment in any campaign with more depth than sheer murderhoboing.

[Hawkstar]

as a rule of thumb, trying to claim that monster races, especially sapient ones capable of making their own moral decisions, are not worthy of being treated as an intelligent being, is a good way to lose your good alignment in any campaign with more depth than sheer murderhoboing.

What makes you say they're actually capable of making their own moral decisions in any significant capacity? The [Humanoid] type just indicates hit dice size, proficiencies, skill ranks per HD, saves, and global immunities. It says nothing about the actual moral decision making ability. (And the mental stats don't either).

Of course, I'm also of the opinion that humans aren't really capable of making their own moral decisions, and just act according to their individual natures (And an illusion of free will/thought/choice is made by trying to fit all those different human natures into a single potential person)

[Socksy]

That they are mine-haunting monsters, though, does.

They're not always evil. They don't always mine (and what would be the issue if they did? They own their own mines or work honestly! +2 to Profession (Miner)!). They're a flipping playable race! There are rules for Kobold PCs!

Do you think I would be a bad DM if when Mama Kobold confronts him -and if he continues to spouse his "they were just kobolds" belief- I have her polymorph him into a kobold?

That would be hilarious and perfect.
Or maybe whichever dragon this clan worships isn't too pleased about this, especially if it's actually good-aligned, and polymorphs him.
Try having some metallic Dragonwrought kobolds around. Or a Dragonborn kobold.

[5ColouredWalker]

What makes you say they're actually capable of making their own moral decisions in any significant capacity?

No modification to mental stats, and the alignment descriptor being 'Usually'.
Compare that with Human, no standard alignment, no mental stat mods.

After that, you then have to look at whether you consider morals inherent or extrinsic. If you believe they're Inherent, than they have limited capability, but so does everyone else, and then Kobolds are truly no better than Humanity, which have 1/9th of their population in every alignment slot.
If you believe morals are extrinsic, than it looks like they've only got a little less than humanity, but then you have to ask yourself how much is due to circumstantial pressure, such as constant ruling over by evil dragons, being the very bottom of the monster food chain, and being near-universally hated.

[AxeAlex]

We are speaking about a professionnal killer...

1: As an adventurer, he kills things to get gold
2: As a Crusader, one of his jobs is to kill evil and beings considered unholy by his religion.
3: As a Dwarf, he hates Kobolds.

You can't apply your own moral code to a professionnal killer in a violent world where species war is a thing... Kobolds are usually malevolent, which means they are usually natural enemies (mortal enemies) of almost all others species.

You arbitrarily decided that it's not ok for a professionnal killer in a monster-empowering dungeon to let monsters live. It can be ok in a setting with grey morality, but in those settings the alignment system should not be a thing.

If he murdered a not-evil vampire (a wierd exceptionnal vampire), would it be different? How would you react? Would you "accept" it better because he's a undead and can't be murdered? If so, then "sentience" has nothing to do in the debate. If you think the vampire is different, then the problem is that things YOU consider abominations and things your player considers abominations are different.

On experience, I find it's because some GMs prefer to give most living evil creatures "free-will" and a reasonable capacity for good. I know I do. But, in the D&D system, they are usually "destined" to be evil. They are sadistic psychopaths, or future sadistic psychopaths. Those who aren't are rare exceptions and are considered "weak", "broken" "aberrant" and "wrong" by their own.

It's ok and interesting to give evil species the potential for good, BUT D&D was made on the assumption that you could kill those creatures without feeling guilt because they are agents of destruction, greed and violence, NOT human-like creatures with a vast array of feelings and motivations.

The best way to let your players be on the same page is just to let them know that in your setting, all creatures with "usually evil" and "usually good", are in fact "usually neutral", because that is the reasonning you are making anyway, even unconsciously.

You decided that the kobolds had a reasonable and plausible capacity for good and were not monsters and agents of evil. Henceforth, they are not "usually evil". Just let your players know that in your setting, living beings are neutral by default, until their actions proves otherwise.

[goto124]

Above post explains it well.

Let me be honest - being set in a massive self-regenerating dungeon implies rather strongly "this a dungeon-crawling type of campaign; hack and slash is encouraged, and in fact we're lamp-shading anything unrealistic about that"

I'm going with this too.

It's an OOC miscommunciation, really. If I killed orcs (or pretty much anything) in a dungeon, and was then told it was an evil thing and I've been stripped of my powers, I would be realllly confused.

Heck, if I saw a pretty girl in the dungeon, my first assumption is that she's a succubus in disguise, and attack immediately. Because dungeon.

The 'acceptable races to kill on sight' tradition is (meant to be) a form of good metagaming, such that the DM doesn't have to spend time convincing the players that 'no you really can kill them without your alignment going sideways'.

If the DM is not going this direction, it has to be communciated clearly.

Preferably, not with a dungeon.


EDIT: Firstly, there's this weird glitch that causes me to hit the larger-than-it-looks delete post button when I try to edit it.

Also, if I'm not wrong, the DM tried to change the tone of the game, from murderhoboing to something with more depth. I'm not sure if he's communciated that with his players yet, since it'll be the first thing to do.

Assuming that the entire group's on board, and the DM's explained that 'killing is wrong if the other guy hasn't done anything wrong', a shift in thinking can still be difficult for the players (even if they've agreed to it). As noted previously, a phylactery of faithfulness can help, by warning the PCs beforehand, along with a short non-angry explanation on why it's wrong if need be.

Give it time. Don't purposely insert moral dilemmas, especially when the players haven't even gotten a grasp on applying morals to a game setting.

[Hawkstar]

No modification to mental stats, and the alignment descriptor being 'Usually'.
Compare that with Human, no standard alignment, no mental stat mods.

No modification to mental stats means nothing, because Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma have no bearing on moral decision-making (But do apply to other decisions made).

The difference in Alignment descriptors tells you that Yes, Kobolds are Monsters. Humans, by having no standard alignment, are absolutely free to choose. You might have had a case if it said "Often", but "Usually" means that they're strongly aligned with that alignment, with drift toward neighboring alignments. And yes, Elves and Dwarves are also Monsters. They just happen to be Good-aligned monsters. There are a lot of Non-evil Monsters that are still absolutely monstrous, even without any fancy subtypes.

After that, you then have to look at whether you consider morals inherent or extrinsic. If you believe they're Inherent, than they have limited capability, but so does everyone else, and then Kobolds are truly no better than Humanity, which have 1/9th of their population in every alignment slot.
If you believe morals are extrinsic, than it looks like they've only got a little less than humanity, but then you have to ask yourself how much is due to circumstantial pressure, such as constant ruling over by evil dragons, being the very bottom of the monster food chain, and being near-universally hated.

Kobolds are above Humans in the very bottom of the food change, are ruled over by Evil Dragons by choice, and are universally hated because of their natures.

The few Kobolds that aren't Lawful Evil are either Neutral Evil or (Monsttrous) Lawful Neutral.

[hamishspence]

No modification to mental stats means nothing, because Wisdom, Intelligence, and Charisma have no bearing on moral decision-making (But do apply to other decisions made).

The difference in Alignment descriptors tells you that Yes, Kobolds are Monsters. Humans, by having no standard alignment, are absolutely free to choose. You might have had a case if it said "Often", but "Usually" means that they're strongly aligned with that alignment, with drift toward neighboring alignments.

There's considerable variation though. The PHB actually gives Kobolds and Beholders as an example - both are Usually LE, but, the "inborn tendency" is much greater in Beholders than in Kobolds.

Races of the Dragon discusses "kobold power centres" and while most are LE, and a large portion of the remainder are LN and NE - there's still a reasonable percentage that are not any of those three.

Cityscape discusses "monsters that can make their living in human-dominated cities" and kobolds were an example.

[NichG]

Heck, if I saw a pretty girl in the dungeon, my first assumption is that she's a succubus in disguise, and attack immediately. Because dungeon.

And here is the true power of demons and devils of deception. Not to go into the world and cause havoc, but rather to give people a justification for horrible acts on the basis of caution and pragmatism. The very fear of succubi here creates a situation where even a good person might spend a moment in thought 'should I kill this girl, just for being here where I don't expect her to be?'. To not think first 'this is wrong', but instead to think 'this is necessary'.

[Segev]

The Crusader was mistaken as to the facts, but acted reasonably given what he believed. It is fitting if he feels guilt after the fact, realizing that these were not the dungeon-spawned monsters he thought they were. It is concerning if he does not, since they never fought back and pled for mercy. Keep an eye on his behavior and whether he consistently ignores things which don't excuse him committing murder-first approaches. Have him roll Wisdom and, if he rolls well enough, give him a warning next time he's about to make a similar mistake.

Have the world react appropriately to his actions. If the kobolds' mother will do something, let her do it. But be sure you don't make it a DM-spite-move; make it real and reasonable within her abilities and decision-making process. And don't be surprised if the PCs (particularly the Crusader) decide to just kill her. If you want her to be in any way sympathetic, she should not appear before them in snarling rage, but should be presented in a non-kill-inducing environment. Perhaps she even hires the adventurers (or tries to) to go find her lost boys.

[LibraryOgre]

While I understand that kobolds are fantasy creatures and not real, that sounds really racist.

What's stopping the elves from labeling dwarves as monster and killing them on sight? Rather strange justification for murdering sentient beings...

Simply put, if they're evil monsters, then they're evil monsters. One of the frequent assumptions of the game, especially earlier editions, is that many monsters as simply that... monsters. They're bad guys, who can be killed with impunity, because they are evil. Killing them reduces the amount of evil in the world, so killing them is good.

If elves label the dwarves monsters and start killing them, well, the elves are wrong because the dwarves are LG. Killing dwarves reduces the amount of good in the world, and is therefore evil. (Now, they might label the dwarves monsters because they're LG, and be killing them to increase the amount of chaos in the world, which the CG elves would favor. But that still makes their actions evil, just in service of Chaos).

When you start considering kobolds to be people, then you start getting on different ground. If kobolds are people, then they have a larger degree of moral freedom, and can choose to be good or evil (or lawful or chaotic), though culture and genetics might send them a certain way (consider, after all, that 3.x kobolds are apparently related to dragons, which have Always alignments... kobolds may have a hereditary disposition towards evil because of this). If they're people, then you can consider their killings to be murder, and the murder to be evil.

However, then we have to look at the specific case he was in... a semi-sentient dungeon that summons monsters for you to kill. He had a pretty good reason to suspect that these creatures WERE monsters set here for him to kill, and that their cries for mercy were feints. He's TRYING to be Lawful Good. He had good reason to suspect they were magical speedbumps. So, I would not bump his alignment for this... might bruise it a bit, but not going to cause actual alignment trouble.

[BootStrapTommy]

Do you think I would be a bad DM if when Mama Kobold confronts him -and if he continues to spouse his "they were just kobolds" belief- I have her polymorph him into a kobold?

This would be wonderful. But it would make you a bad DM, as the encounter would be overleveled and unfair.

Like I suggested, if momma kobold is a powerful spellcaster, she might have a reputation with the local authority. If the authority attempts to arrest the Crusader for murder, it would impress upon the character, and the player, that the Crusader's actions were wrong. Maybe even frame it up so that the authorities believe the Crusader murdered the kobolds for the minor treasure they were collecting, painting the Crusader in a worse light so he has to not just atone, but also clear his name. This gives you a big hook with which to pursue a number of potential new plots. Use it as an opportunity to advance the plot in a new direction, not punish the player.

We are speaking about a professionnal killer...

1: As an adventurer, he kills things to get gold
2: As a Crusader, one of his jobs is to kill evil and beings considered unholy by his religion.
3: As a Dwarf, he hates Kobolds.

You can't apply your own moral code to a professionnal killer in a violent world where species war is a thing... Kobolds are usually malevolent, which means they are usually natural enemies (mortal enemies) of almost all others species.

You arbitrarily decided that it's not ok for a professionnal killer in a monster-empowering dungeon to let monsters live. It can be ok in a setting with grey morality, but in those settings the alignment system should not be a thing.

If he murdered a not-evil vampire (a wierd exceptionnal vampire), would it be different? How would you react? Would you "accept" it better because he's a undead and can't be murdered? If so, then "sentience" has nothing to do in the debate. If you think the vampire is different, then the problem is that things YOU consider abominations and things your player considers abominations are different.

However, then we have to look at the specific case he was in... a semi-sentient dungeon that summons monsters for you to kill. He had a pretty good reason to suspect that these creatures WERE monsters set here for him to kill, and that their cries for mercy were feints. He's TRYING to be Lawful Good. He had good reason to suspect they were magical speedbumps. So, I would not bump his alignment for this... might bruise it a bit, but not going to cause actual alignment trouble.

Miko. Just because she thought she was doing the right thing, didn't mean she was.

As everyone keeps pointing out as if it proves the counter, D&D has a rigid moral system. And in that rigid moral system, killing unarmed, nonthreatening non-Evil creatures because you thought they were Evil is still murdering unarmed, nonthreatening non-Evil creatures, an Evil act. Your belief about it does not change the fact that you killed innocents having obtained no evidence toward their guilt. That's neither Good, nor is it Lawful.

We can blather on about what assumption might occur when one encounters kobolds, but if that assumption was wrong, the Crusader is still responsible for his action. He isn't atoned by his unwavering sense of self-righteousness. And his action was killing a group of unarmed, non-Evil kobolds as they begged for mercy. Just because he thought it was right, doesn't mean it was.

When you start considering kobolds to be people, then you start getting on different ground. If kobolds are people, then they have a larger degree of moral freedom, and can choose to be good or evil (or lawful or chaotic), though culture and genetics might send them a certain way (consider, after all, that 3.x kobolds are apparently related to dragons, which have Always alignments... kobolds may have a hereditary disposition towards evil because of this). If they're people, then you can consider their killings to be murder, and the murder to be evil.

As for kobolds being a "kill on sight kinda monster"? That pretty much went out the door with Races of the Dragon making them a non-level-adjusted PC race...

[Yukitsu]

The comic works as a comic. I wouldn't honestly want to experience that one as a game at the table.

[MrStabby]

This has the risk of being a bit of a ramble but...

You can obey the laws of your Race/God and be lawful but if those laws are evil you cannot be good. I would argue that a law that requires you to kill other walking taking creatures with no evidence they have committed a crime, intend to commit a crime or to harm you in any way is not a good law.

If you have two conflicting codes, one saying "kill all Kobalds" and another saying "don't kill those that are no threat/have not been found guilty by due process" then priority is a valid choice for the player to make. Deciding that the good aspect supersedes the lawful aspect pushes towards neutral good alignment and allowing the divine/racial command to overcome the good points towards the lawful neutral alignment. The player made the choice to have a character with a conflicting set of beliefs (and potentially a very interesting character) and if the character IS conflicted by this then there is perhaps greater grounds for leniency.

I think arguing Kobalds are evil and deserve to die is possibly too metagamey (on the tiny chance it is just simply stupid and wrong). Even if Kobalds are largely evil in your world then the character should at least have a reason for being so certain. Faith can be a reason for this. Blindly following the doctrine of an evil god in the belief it is good is plausible - fundamentalism is not uncommon.


My answer would be to allow the crusader to atone. Have the Kobalds' grieving mother beg the party to return the bodies of her children so she can bury them. This should give an opportunity for the player to display which way their alignment goes. Given that this would happen outside the dungeon there is no confusing ambiguity. No acts of revenge, only expressions of regret and grief means only a seriously delusional player would think that in the eyes of a lawful good god that the killing of this matriarch would be justified.

On that note I would argue that the crusader's god does not care about the Kobalds but that they do care about the crusader. No matter how expendable the god considers the Kobalds to do so, they have tested the alignment of the paladin. Crusader's gods may not care about the Kobalds themselves but will care that their representative shows no compassion, no desire for justice, no requirement for any justification for killing creatures beyond their proximity.

If it were my game the crusader would atone or fall. You gave them every chance to stop. You showed they were unarmed, helpless, powerless to resist. You showed them begging for mercy and then fleeing. You made it clear with every stroke of that player's sword that what they were doing was not Lawful Good. Yes there are mitigating factors, the dungeon environment, the character's faith based hatred of Kobalds etc. so there should be a chance to atone.

[Yukitsu]

Crusaders aren't paladins, they can't fall.

[MrStabby]

Crusaders aren't paladins, they can't fall.

Yeah sorry. I was taking about an alignment change/alignment based consequences. Poor choice of words.

[Comet]

A crusader acting out in a combat high and slaughtering a bunch of innocent creatures that he perceived as a threat should, absolutely, be a problem. There should absolutely be consequences for doing so, it should absolutely make the crusader's life difficult, if just for a moment.

I'm not seeing the problem. This is how stories in roleplaying games are made. The GM prepares stuff, the players come in and turn that stuff upside down and then the GM extrapolates from that and presents any probable consequences of the players' actions. Nobody's done any wrong here. You shouldn't be offended that the player couldn't read your mind, the player shouldn't be offended that the world has the potential for twists and turns.

[AxeAlex]

Miko. Just because she thought she was doing the right thing, didn't mean she was.

The OOTS comic is not relevant, but even if we go by it:

Miko only fell when she killed Shojo, a human aligned with the gods that was giving her powers.

She didn't seems to have any trouble being an evil-slaying inquisitor when she directed her killing urges towards enemies of her diety.

As everyone keeps pointing out as if it proves the counter, D&D has a rigid moral system. And in that rigid moral system, killing unarmed, nonthreatening non-Evil creatures because you thought they were Evil is still murdering unarmed, nonthreatening non-Evil creatures, an Evil act. Your belief about it does not change the fact that you killed innocents having obtained no evidence toward their guilt. That's neither Good, nor is it Lawful.

If Kobolds are not evil in this setting, the character should know about that. Unless specified otherwise, he can be excused to think the Kobold were evil, because they are supposed to be in the default D&D setting. If this is the case, then it was miscommunication, but you can't blame the player.

The level of threat evil poses to you has no bearing on if it's ok to kill it or not. Would a level 30 adventurer be unjustified to kill some (armed or not) orcs because they can't possibly pose a threat to him?

And what if those orcs wanted to go slaughter a village right after?

Grey morality has no place in the default D&D setting. I'm not saying grey morality is not interesting and compelling, I use it myself.

But I can justify the player's actions if he was not warned beforehand that the game didn't use black and white morality.

We can blather on about what assumption might occur when one encounters kobolds, but if that assumption was wrong, the Crusader is still responsible for his action. He isn't atoned by his unwavering sense of self-righteousness. And his action was killing a group of unarmed, non-Evil kobolds as they begged for mercy. Just because he thought it was right, doesn't mean it was.

Again you assume the Kobold were non-evil. But Kobold ARE evil and a natural mortal enemy of the dwarves. I'm sure default-setting Moradin think as much too.

As for kobolds being a "kill on sight kinda monster"? That pretty much went out the door with Races of the Dragon making them a non-level-adjusted PC race...

PCs can be evil.

[Yukitsu]

Looking more at the scenario, what tools did you give them to determine that they weren't spawned by the dungeon? You've implied that they could have checked, but how?

I'm also curious as to why those kobolds would want to go into a place that periodically spawns dangerous monsters while unarmed and evidently incompetent at combat. The location itself is dangerous and it doesn't sound like they had any way to know that a section of it had been cleared out recently. Do they stalk adventuring parties to see when it gets cleared? But even then if a monster pops out, what do they do then?

There are enough little holes I feel in the plot that I'm not sure how I would respond to it as a player. The little inconsistencies would very likely add up in my head and make me suspect that this is a trap which kobolds are notorious users of.

[Elricaltovilla]

Had the party ever encountered Kobolds before?

If yes, were these non-hostile interactions or was it a combat situation (specifically party vs. kobolds)?

If no, was the party given the opportunity to identify the kobolds? Did they succeed or fail at that identification check? If they succeeded, did the DM make it clear that kobolds weren't part of the dungeon's normal monster spawning?

Whether or not the crusader is in the wrong depends on the answer to all of those questions. If the party has fought kobolds as dungeon monsters before, then the crusader acted entirely appropriately for the situation. If he failed to identify the creatures in a hostile environment, then his actions came from ignorance, not malice. If he wasn't given the opportunity or information necessary to make an informed decision, then the problem lies with the DM as much as the player.

Only in a situation where the PC knew kobolds weren't monsters, knew they weren't hostile and recognized them as such and then still proceeded to kill them would his actions constitute an act of willful evil.

[Eisenheim]

The particular scenario isn't really the issue. I would not do anything in game in specific reaction to it. The issue is, as some have already said, the group all being on the same page about the place and nature of morals and moral dilemmas in the game. There's not a right or wrong answer to whether what the crusader did was inappropriate for a heroic and good character. The answer varies between games and settings. You just all need to talk things out and agree on what kind of game you're playing.

I don't wish attack, OP, but it does seem reasonable to assume that, in a game focused on a dungeon full of magically spawning monsters, moral questions of monster slaying won't be an issue.

[dream]

Based on how the Crusader dealt with her "kids", if the mother confronts him, she'll end up in the same graveyard.

This is obviously a problem for the GM, but, it's a GM-created problem. There was no pre-game establishment of gaming and setting expectations. It doesn't mean he/she is a bad GM, but that is a mistake. It gets corrected by NOW establishing gaming expectations. If kobolds are "people" instead of the evil monsters described in the Monster Manual, make sure you communicate that. If the GM has a problem with trad alignement, have the talk about alignment with the players. Good Gamemasters communicate with their players.

When you assume .....

+: when a person asks for advice, gets advice, then argues with the person who provided it, was advice really what was wanted? Maybe that person was looking for others to reinforce their thoughts and actions? In which case, any advice that opposes those thoughts and actions may be a waste of time. Few of us are here to argue. Most of us are here to discuss TTRPGs and share ideas in a mature, respectful manner.

[LibraryOgre]

Miko. Just because she thought she was doing the right thing, didn't mean she was.

As everyone keeps pointing out as if it proves the counter, D&D has a rigid moral system. And in that rigid moral system, killing unarmed, nonthreatening non-Evil creatures because you thought they were Evil is still murdering unarmed, nonthreatening non-Evil creatures, an Evil act. Your belief about it does not change the fact that you killed innocents having obtained no evidence toward their guilt. That's neither Good, nor is it Lawful.

I'd point out the Paladins of Azure City in Redcloak's background, who went into a goblin village and slaughtered all the goblins, including the young, without apparent alignment, or even class, consequences. They went out of their way to slaughter "innocents", and merrily road back as paladins. And that Miko, as she was dying, was told she was going to go to the LG afterlife, regardless of her recent actions.

As for kobolds being a "kill on sight kinda monster"? That pretty much went out the door with Races of the Dragon making them a non-level-adjusted PC race...

An optional book for an edition I don't play doesn't have a lot of authority with me. I mean, I can point that the 1e MM lists kobolds as evil, without mention of exception, but I don't expect that to carry a lot of weight with you, either.